What do I know that is not revealed in the administration's press conferences? Only that they are not telling us anything that they do not want us to hear. I also know that as time passes we will learn more about such matters as the number of civilian casualties, the treatment of captured combatants, and whether our "intervention in support of civilization" led to more deaths of innocents from starvation and cold than would have occured if we had not intervened. I also know that we will never know what would have happened if we had pursued a less violent approach, such as the military escort of food and supply shipments to the millions of starving people in Afghanistan while publicizing our reward offers for bin Laden's capture. My experience has always supported the adage that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Our war hasn't caught bin Laden yet, how many innocent lives are properly lost in the hunt?

The bin Laden tape released today is certainly damning. Indeed, its persuasive force with regard to his guilt makes it plain that there is no need for secret evidence, miltary tribunals and the like, but we are both deviating from the subject of this thread.

No one has stated any reason why my suggestion that we follow the Golden Rule with regard to John Walker, and eschew jingoistic analysis of the matter, should not govern the decision of what should be done.

When Bush ran for President he told us his favorite political philosopher was Jesus. I understood him to mean that when he faced difficult decisions he asked himself "what would Jesus do?" While I am not a Christian, I think that's a pretty good question to ask with regard to John Walker and the rest of the September 11 fallout. I doubt Jesus would pursue the Bush administration's approach to this entire problem. I think he would try to follow the Golden Rule.